I used to think the burn mechanism in @Pixels was a fixed way to control supply.

Less tokens over time should mean more stability. That’s how it usually works.

But when I looked closer, it didn’t feel that simple.

Burn in $PIXEL depends on player activity. When players spend more, more tokens get removed. When activity slows, the burn slows too.

So it isn’t constant.

It changes with behavior.

At the same time, emission doesn’t move the same way. It’s adjusted through updates, not directly tied to how players act day to day.

That creates an imbalance.

One side reacts to the system, the other is managed separately.

During high activity, everything looks balanced. But that balance depends on players continuing to spend at similar levels.

If activity drops, the burn weakens immediately in #pixel

It also means that periods of low engagement don’t just slow the system down, they reduce one of the main forces keeping supply in check.

So instead of acting like a stabilizer, it follows the state of the game.

It reduces supply, but only when the system is already active.

If that’s the case, is the burn mechanism actually controlling the economy, or just responding to it?